Lone guns versus Pack Hunters - Who benefits more?

[subshakerz]

The question is specific to the divide between Hadlee/Murali vs McGrath/Warne, the idea of one bowler having the advantage or disadvantage in one scenario versus the other.

We assume their situations equals out in quality but does it really? Or is one more handicapped than the other?

 

[Coronis]

The question is specific to the divide between Hadlee/Murali vs McGrath/Warne, the idea of one bowler having the advantage or disadvantage in one scenario versus the other.

We assume their situations equals out in quality but does it really? Or is one more handicapped than the other?

In terms of raw numbers, the lone wolf will benefit. Generally bowlers with good support will have better stats due to obviously other bowlers keeping pressure on and not having to bowl extended spells when they’re not at their best or when conditions don’t suit them.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, lone wolves will benefit on aggregate wicket totals, 5fers, and WPM.

But pack hunters will get the advantage on averaged statistics, like bowling average, Strike rate, economy.

 

[Migara]

Packs will go beyond middle order regularly after which cheap wickets are available.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Look at the Windies attack of 70s and 80s and the lack of 5/10 wicket hauls for various members of the side. Hunting in packs stops the high numbers for bowlers compared to a lone wolf.

Guess a lone wolf would love some support though.

 

[Bolo.]

Packs will go beyond middle order regularly after which cheap wickets are available.

Packs are competing with more guys for those lower order wickets when they come around though. Probably balances out.

 

[Socerer 01]

the lack of modern standout bowlers in all the rankings and comparison polls compared to the past should answer this easily, lone guns benefit more for individual pretty looking stats

 

[nightprowler10]

Guess a lone wolf would love some support though.

Yeah a lone wolf would still find it preferable to have good support for obvious reasons of keeping the pressure on, and also to hopefully knock over a gun bat that's figured out the lone wolf.

 

[Migara]

Packs are competing with more guys for those lower order wickets when they come around though. Probably balances out.

Still they get them. Lone wolves rarely get them.

 

[subshakerz]

Look at the Windies attack of 70s and 80s and the lack of 5/10 wicket hauls for various members of the side. Hunting in packs stops the high numbers for bowlers compared to a lone wolf.

Guess a lone wolf would love some support though.

I don't know about this. Garner, Holding, Marshall, Croft, Roberts all managed more than 4 WPM pretty easily. Croft and Garner being 4th changers had less fifers.

 

[Bolo.]

Still they get them. Lone wolves rarely get them.

Not rarely. A weak unit with 1 quality bowler might not get a crack at the tail every innings, but it's usually happening 1+ times per game.

Strength of your batting unit is potentially a better predictor than your bowling unit in terms of how much you get to bowl at tailenders.

 

[Migara]

Not rarely. A weak unit with 1 quality bowler might not get a crack at the tail every innings, but it's usually happening 1+ times per game.

Strength of your batting unit is potentially a better predictor than your bowling unit in terms of how much you get to bowl at tailenders.

Exactly the case. Pack will get there most of the time. There goes the difference.

Relentlessness in attack we have not even considered.